Military Review

Blitzkrieg 1914. Myths about the First World War

103

What do we remember about the First World War?


How do you imagine the First World War far from stories people? The most common sources of knowledge are vague memories from school lessons, some fragmentary information from publications and feature films, snippets of discussions, opinions that have been accidentally heard. All together forms certain stereotypes in the heads.




The mere presence of stereotypes cannot be called a bad phenomenon. This is nothing but a dry squeeze from historiography that dominates the domestic and foreign scientific community. And historiography can be diluted and flavored with replicas of rebels from historical science, of which there are few, and amateur historians who are not connected by corporate ethics, which are now much larger.

Another thing is that historiography is often one-sided. In Soviet times, one-sided for the sake of ideology, and in modern times - for the sake of it is not clear to anyone. However, you can search for beneficiaries.

Interpretation of history in the right way for interpreters is a lucrative affair. But it’s often difficult to call it just history. The stereotype is first turned into a myth, and then with the help of a cunning selection of facts - into direct disinformation.

It is clear why the PMV was cunningly interpreted during the Soviet era. It was necessary to show the rottenness and reactionaryness of the tsarist regime. But why are modern, no, not historians, but distributors of new, democratic myths doing the same thing?

One could refer to the irrelevance and insignificance of the topic, and, as a result, the lack of interest among historians. But no, there is interest, as evidenced by the wide discussion that began 15 years ago regarding the existence of the Schlieffen plan.

So, if you wish, you can find those who are interested in continuing the Bolshevik myths and creating new myths is beneficial. But it is beneficial to those whom neither the Bolsheviks nor the autocracy are satisfied with. And there are such. They are the ideological heirs of the Provisional Government of 1917 of the year. Moreover, it is they who are in charge of ideology in our de-ideologized country. Therefore, they not only did not reject the historical heritage of the Bolsheviks on this issue, but they also developed to the best of their ability. And to our homegrown mythmakers, you can add American. Where without them?

In relation to the First World, the following myths are most often found and replicated in Russian historiography and popular literature.

Myth No. 1. The goals of the Russian Empire in the First World War.

Back in Soviet times, it was claimed that Russia entered the war to capture the Black Sea straits. The reason for the statement is simple: it was necessary to bite the recently overthrown tsarism, exposing its anti-popular aggressive nature. Sometimes the desire to seize the Polish lands of Germany and Austria is added to this.

It has long and often been argued that Russia got involved in a clash of the Western powers that was unnecessary for her, as it sat tightly on the French financial hook. Categorically should not have entered the war, despite the pushing of the French. It would be right to stay away. And the Europeans let them bleed themselves as much as they like.

Finally, a new survey, which appeared in the zero years of our century: the assertion that the "Schlieffen Plan" never existed. Germany was not at all preparing for war. The throw to Paris through Belgium was completely random.

Myth No. 2. The country's unpreparedness for war.

Russia, unlike civilized countries, was not ready for war. Evidence of this is the lack of heavy artillery and the small number of stockpiled shells, which led to well-known problems when the war entered the positional phase. Plus the lack of ammunition, machine guns, rifles and in general everything.

Myth No. 3. Suicide attack.

Russia, for the sake of creditors, having not completed the mobilization, rushed into a suicidal unprepared attack in East Prussia, where it was naturally defeated because - see paragraph 2.

Let's analyze the points.

Myth No. 1. The goals of the Russian Empire in the First World War


All allegations of goals in the war are killed by the chronology of events in the first week of August.

The empire enters the war to capture the straits. What is she doing? Turning to the facts, we see that nothing.

Here is the chronology of 1914 of the year:

Blitzkrieg 1914. Myths about the First World War


It turns out that first Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, then Germany to Russia. Two days later, Germany attacks Belgium and France. A day later, England stands up for the allies, and another day later, Austria-Hungary attacks Russia. Some kind of strange aggression of Russia. How does the declaration of war by Germany and Austria-Hungary help Russia to capture the Black Sea straits, which (what a surprise) belong to Turkey, which does not participate in the war?

Only after 2 months, namely 29 and 30 of October 1914 of the year, the Turkish fleet under the command of the German admiral fired on Sevastopol, Odessa, Feodosia and Novorossiysk.

In response to this, on November 2 of November 1914, Russia declared war on Turkey. Is this the very evidence of Russia's aggression against Turkey in order to capture the straits? And if the Turks remained smarter and did not attack? What then to do with the straits?

Thus, the assertion of entering the war for the sake of the Turkish straits is not just wrong, but false. Why is it repeated if the Bolsheviks who invented it have long rested in the Bose? I think the answer is obvious. This is the simplest way, having chatted the facts, to declare Germany and Russia as co-instigators and warlords of WWII and forget about the British, who did the maximum possible so that the Kaiser would not change his mind and turn on the back.

Sound familiar?

As for plans to seize Polish lands, this is a clear remake. There were then no Polish lands. There was German Silesia with Pomerania and Austrian Cracovia with Galicia. And not everywhere Poles made up the majority of the population. I suspect that the Poles launched this discourse, actively persuading themselves that they, the Poles, are urgently needed by Russia, and with these shamanistic spells they are invoking American troops to their land.

Why did Russia enter the world war?

The most interesting thing is that no one started any world war and did not intend to start even in the conditions of confrontation between the two military blocs.

Austria attacked Serbia, having a completely local task. Russia announced a partial mobilization against Austria in order to prevent the destruction of the ally, but did not intend to fight Germany, because there was no need.

On July 28 of 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia by direct telegram and on the same day began shelling Belgrade. Nicholas II sent a message to Berlin that a partial mobilization would be announced on July 29. In a new telegram on the same day, the emperor suggested that William send the Austro-Serbian conflict to the Hague Conference to prevent bloodshed. Kaiser Wilhelm II did not consider it necessary to answer.

On the morning of the 30 of July, the emperor in a telegram again urged William II to influence Austria. In the afternoon, Nicholas II sent to Berlin with General Tatishchev V.S. Another letter to the Kaiser asking for assistance in peace. Only in the evening, under the pressure of military officials, did the emperor give permission to begin general mobilization.

On the morning of August 1, Nicholas II tried to convince the German ambassador that Russian mobilization did not mean a threat to Germany. There would be a negotiating table. Moreover, on July 26, the British Foreign Minister proposed that England and Germany, with the participation of France and Italy (without Russia. - Approx. Aut.), Act as mediators to reconcile Serbia and Austria, but Germany rejects this option. But in the afternoon, the German ambassador Lichnovsky reports from London to Berlin: “In the event that we do not attack France, England will remain neutral and guarantee the neutrality of France.” Having received numerous reports of high probability, almost a guarantee of British neutrality, the Kaiser declares war on Russia 1 August 17.00.

And where is the French credit hook? Where is the Entente pushing Russia to enter an unnecessary world massacre? It was England that pushed Germany to war with Russia, and only with Russia.

But France could well stand aside and not come to the aid of an ally who would definitely not stand against the Triple Alliance. But the French announced a mobilization on 2 on August, after which the Kaiser decided to act in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan. And there already the British had to fit in to prevent the defeat of allied France. The defeat of allied Russia was completely allowed by them.

Many say that the death of Samsonov’s army in East Prussia saved Paris. This is true. But after announcing mobilization after a day's hesitation, France thwarted the English plan to leave Russia alone with the German-Austrian alliance and almost defeated itself. Why is no one talking about this? Yes, we all understand that if Russia were defeated, France would be next. But here, as they say, options are already possible. However, this direction is not interesting for researchers. The cultivated myth is interesting and its purpose is interesting.

The assertion that Russia, which Germany attacked, did not have to participate in the world war, could be attributed to ignorance. Well, how can you not participate in the war if you were declared this war? But not so simple. When they say that Russia did not have to get stuck in the war of England and France against Germany and Austria-Hungary, it means something completely different. The idea that even it was not necessary to try to protect the Serbs from the Austrian attack and generally participate in European affairs is being pushed implicitly. And in this I suspect a conscious and deliberately masked call for historical surrender to the West from the series “We would now drink the Bavarian.”

An implicit but logical chain is being built: it was necessary to capitulate in 1812, and the good Napoleon would abolish serfdom to us. In 1914, it was necessary to capitulate, and instead of revolution, industrialization, flights to Kosomos, they would crunch with a French bun. In 1941, it was necessary to capitulate, and would have drunk on beer. It is necessary to capitulate now to taste cheeses and jamon.

In 2002, the book "Inventing Schlieffen's Plan" was published. Its author is Terence Zuber, a retired US Army military and, judging by the surname, ethnic German. A retelling of the book and, all the more, criticism are beyond the scope of the article. It is easy to find materials for the discussion that was widely unfolding in narrow historical circles. I will limit myself to setting out the essence.

Zuber's key statement is that Schlieffen’s plan did not exist. So, nothing special, non-binding notes of a retiree. In support of the reader presented an extensive evidence base. That is, according to Zuber, the campaign in the West in the summer of 1914 is nothing more than a hasty improvisation of Moltke Jr. in the face of a threat from the east. Hurry, because Germany did not have offensive plans, and for some reason refused to defensively, if any, existed. As a result, Germany was a victim. If she declared the first war, it was solely as a response to Russian mobilization in order to deliver a preemptive strike. The first of the famous historians, the idea of ​​a German victim was put forward by Delbrück, in 1941, Hitler developed it, and now Zuber worked on this field.

It would seem, so what? Did anyone say or write something? But in the 21 century, nothing is done just like that.

What do we get in the end?

The first, early assertion that Nicholas II did not intercede for Serbia at all, but sought to take away the straits from Turkey, makes Germany and Russia the instigators of the war equally.

The second, about French money, directly misinforms people, claiming that the country has entered a foreign war that has already begun. This discourse, by its very existence, denies us the right to participate in European affairs as an independent political force, but only as an executor of someone else's will.

The third statement, about the lack of offensive plans in Germany, completely removes that from the list of organizers of the massacre. She is now a victim, like Austria-Hungary, which, by the way, is generally tried not to be remembered again.

The result for the mass consciousness: Russia, and only Russia, is to blame for starting a world war. Germany and Austria are victims of unprovoked aggression. England and France, because of a falsely understood knightly nobility for Russia, entered into a fratricidal war with kindred peoples. Russia is to blame for everything. And in the subtleties, few will go into.

That's all there is to know about historical myths in order to understand who is planting them and why, and not pay attention to verbal husks.

Myth No. 2. The country's unpreparedness for war


Is unpreparedness for war an objective reality or also a myth, only a military-historical myth? And why are we used to talking about the unpreparedness of Russia alone? And were other countries ready? Who, for example? Strategists of all sides sat in a puddle. And this is an indisputable fact.

The Germans failed with their Schlieffen plan, despite the fact that at first they were successful. They could not defeat the French and free up forces to strike east.

Similarly, Russian strategists were mistaken in the calculations to defeat Austria-Hungary with one blow and free up forces to storm Berlin.

The Austrians did not manage to defeat the Serbs with the Montenegrins and, having thrown troops to the east, deter the Russian army at the border, while the Germans crushed the French.

The French also expected to link the Germans in Alsace in the oncoming battle and wait for the Russian advance.

And many more countries completely overestimated their strengths, deciding that it was their entry into the war on one side or another that would be decisive, that they would receive all the glory, and the allies would owe them their coffin. These are England, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania.

In the 1914 year, only the Serbs achieved the planned result. They fulfilled their task, completely holding the front. And it is not their fault that Russia was not able to defeat Austria-Hungary by the New Year.

Oh yes, there are still Japanese who picked up the German colonies in China.

That is, no one was ready for the war that occurred in reality, and not in the minds of the generals. And this is taking into account the lesson of the Russo-Japanese War, where all the technical, tactical, and strategic elements appeared, with the exception of the role aviation. If Russia is reproached, it means a lack of industrial potential, which drawback in 1913 was not at all as obvious as in 1915.

From the very first day, all key states have used an attacking strategy. Everyone was going to succeed in the oncoming battle and end the war before the autumn slaughter. Accordingly, from these considerations the very same stockpiles of shells were created. Do not forget, the reserves of shells for weapons in our army were approximately equal to the French, surpassed the Austrian and inferior to the German. However, the Germans were preparing for two wars. First with France, then with Russia. And for each of the wars individually, they stockpiled less shells than we did. It turns out that, in the framework of the chosen strategy, our artillery was provided very well (by 1915, no more than 40% of the ammunition resource was shot). That is, shell hunger was actually organized.

So, the pre-war strategy did not justify itself.

Does this mean that the First World War was doomed to be transformed from maneuverable to trench, in which the one with more powerful industry and more resources wins? Or did someone from the warring parties and countries with a better combination of circumstances or with better governance have a chance of a quick victory?

Germany? Unlikely.

Schlieffen’s plan stalled immediately - on Belgian fortresses. On the move, they couldn’t be taken. True, the obstacle to the blitzkrieg was partially stopped by Ludendorff. He managed to secure the capture of Liège. But there were many similar obstacles, and there weren’t enough Ludendorfs. As it turned out, with all the gloomy beauty, Schlieffen's plan did not have a margin of safety in case of unforeseen circumstances.

Yes, plus creative reworking of the plan by Moltke, Jr., more than once criticized by historians. In addition, the Belgians opposed Schliffen's mathematics to intransigence, and the French - quick maneuver by reserves. And you should not forget that the Schlieffen plan allowed the loss of East Prussia. As long as the Russians were busy in front of the forts of Koenigsberg, Graudin, Thorn, and the Carpathians were stormed, France would have been defeated. In fact, Moltke exchanged a strategic victory near Paris for a tactical victory near Königsberg, preserving the cunk estates, but losing the war.

After the massacre, various recipes for victory were put forward for the Germans. Including our general Svechin. But as far as the Svechinsky alternative was logical and accurate in terms of military strategy, it was just as impracticable in terms of politics. In general, using after-knowledge, it can be argued: for the Axis powers there was no winning strategy.

The strategy of the Entente was that England and France restrain Germany, and Russia smashes Austria-Hungary. Then they press Germany together. And if in Galicia events developed as a whole according to plan, then the North-Western Front was defeated, and the eastern blitzkrieg did not take place. That is, in fact, the Entente war plan turned out to be as unrealizable as the Schlieffen plan. It would seem that all. What to talk about next?

However, for the purity of the experiment, it is worth looking at, and what would happen if the East Prussian operation (without taking into account the alternative option of the outbreak of war) were successful? But first, one must determine whether the North-Western Front really had no chance, or whether the plan of the General Staff was quite viable.

To be continued ...
Author:
103 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 25 September 2019 05: 05
    +13
    I read it with interest!
    He only came to the conclusion that the author, struggling with myths, created his own myths .... so that we buy what we love and wait for the continuation, both from the Dear Author and his equally respected Opponents !!!
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 25 September 2019 06: 58
      +1
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      He only came to the conclusion that the author, fighting myths, created his own myths ...

      In general, the author convincingly told about the fact that Russia itself, allegedly, "got involved" in the war, and about the straits, and the alleged unwillingness of only Russia.

      But he is wrong, I think, in this:
      But France is quite could stay away and not come to the aid of an ally who clearly would not stand against the Triple Alliance. But the French announced a mobilization on August 2.

      France was not going to fight for anyone categorically moreover she even withdrew troops 10 km from the border to avoid even the hypothetical possibility of a collision and provocation.
      But .... Germany on August 1 announced mobilization and France was simply FORCED to declare her, so as not to remain defenseless before her. So the desire to help Russia is not the main reason for its actions.

      And one more thing: the respected author leads to the idea that England was pushing the war, but it wasn’t necessary to push it: Germany SAMA was eager to fight for the redivision of the world, markets, for weakening the rapidly growing Russia. And she was ready for it since 1908, 1912, when, thanks to only Russia, she managed to escape.

      This Germany, literally with kicks, forced Austria to start the war, and it was she who, spitting on the unequivocal warning of England about the war in the event of an attack on France, attacked her.
      Germany is the true arsonist of war.

      The article is a big plus.
      1. Karabut
        Karabut 28 September 2019 23: 12
        -1
        How can people fit in their heads- "Germany on August 1 announced mobilization and France was simply FORCED to declare hers, so as not to remain defenseless in front of her." - and this is correct.
        But when Russia was the first to declare universal mobilization, it certainly didn’t threaten anyone and was not at all to blame.)) Well, well.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 29 September 2019 06: 29
          +2
          Quote: Karabut
          But when Russia first declared universal mobilization

          Mobilization in the Republic of Ingushetia began after mobilization in other countries.
          1. Karabut
            Karabut 29 September 2019 08: 49
            -2
            In what “other countries”? On July 31, the Russian Empire announced a general mobilization into the army.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 29 September 2019 09: 45
              0
              Quote: Karabut
              In which "other countries"? 3

              Go to school and find out that in A-Hungary it started on July 26, and on August 28th, Belgrade ironed Belgrade and concentrated troops on the Russian border.
              1. Karabut
                Karabut 29 September 2019 12: 24
                -3
                If a person does not see the difference between partial and general mobilization, I have nothing to talk about with him.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 30 September 2019 09: 33
                  -1
                  Quote: Karabut
                  If a person does not see the difference between partial and general mobilization, I have nothing to talk about with him.

                  There is nothing to talk about with a person who does not know that after July 26, the mobilization of Hungary went without interruption
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 29 September 2019 10: 12
              +2
              Quote: Karabut
              In what "other countries"?

              Already answered you Olgovich.
              1. Karabut
                Karabut 29 September 2019 11: 17
                -3
                Olgovich is an ignoramus who does not know the difference between the types of mobilization.
                Berlin, July 30, 1914

                Thank you very much for the telegram. There can be no question that the language of my ambassador might not correspond to the tone of my telegram. Count Purtales has been instructed to draw the attention of your government to the danger and sad consequences that mobilization entails; in my telegram to you I said the same thing. Austria acts exclusively against Serbia and mobilized only part of its army. If, as in the current situation, according to a message with you and your Government, Russia is mobilizing against Austria, my role as a mediator, which you kindly trusted me and which I assumed, having heeded your heartfelt request, would be in jeopardy, if not to say - ripped off. Now the whole burden of the upcoming decision lies entirely on your shoulders, and you will have to bear responsibility for Peace or War.

                Willy
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 29 September 2019 13: 27
                  +3
                  Quote: Karabut
                  Austria acts exclusively against Serbia and mobilized only part of its army.

                  “On the same day that Berchtold refused my offer to continue negotiations with the Austro-Hungarian ambassador in Petrograd, that is, July 28 (according to the new style), Austria declared war on Serbia and attacked the Serbian flotilla on the Danube,” he wrote in his memoirs, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire Sergey Sazonov. - In Petrograd, the announcement of the Austrian mobilization was expected from hour to hour. As early as July 26, the manager of our consulate in Prague informed me of the mobilization order, which had not yet been officially announced, which should obviously be followed by the order for general mobilization, which was signed on the 28th, i.e., on the day of the declaration of war on Serbia»

                  In the morning July 30 (August 17) the emperor in a telegram again urged William II to influence Austria. In the afternoon, Nicholas II sent to Berlin with General Tatishchev V.S. another letter to the Kaiser asking for assistance in peace. Only in the evening under pressure from military officials, the emperor gave permission to begin general mobilization.

                  Well, who is the ignoramus?
                  1. Karabut
                    Karabut 29 September 2019 19: 02
                    -3
                    It turns out you.
                    The first quote from Sazonov, a civilian who refers to the consulate in Prague? Not even to the embassy in Vienna, but to "Baba Masha", for the order that was signed, but does not write whether a general mobilization was announced or not, given that Sazonov is a liar, who fell for a lie about two notes of the declaration of war by Pourtales, I would disdain such a witness. The Austrians really announced a PRIVATE mobilization on the 26th, and a general one on July 31, that is, after the Russian.
                    The second passage is correct, but here are the facts - “On the morning of July 29, the Russian emperor in Peterhof simultaneously signed two alternative decrees: one on partial and the other on general mobilization.
                    On the evening of July 29, German Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg telegraphed Sazonov that further actions to mobilize Russia would force Germany to begin mobilizing in response, and then a European war could hardly be avoided. Kaiser Wilhelm II also sent a rather peaceful telegram to Nicholas II, stating that he, by pressing on the Austrians, is making his last efforts to prevent war and hopes for understanding Russia "
                    By the way, "your" Sazonov writes that he was with the emperor in the afternoon of the 30th, but this is not important, it is important that Russia was the first to announce the general mobilization of Russia and this is a fact that ignoramuses are trying to dispute.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 29 September 2019 21: 35
                      +3
                      Quote: Karabut
                      The Austrians did indeed announce the private mobilization of the 26th, and the general mobilization of July 31

                      Source? I brought mine.
                      Quote: Karabut
                      Kaiser Wilhelm II also sent a rather peaceful telegram to Nicholas II, stating that he, by pressing on the Austrians, is making his last efforts to prevent war and hopes for understanding Russia "

                      That is, he suggested that Russia voluntarily capitulate to AB. For some reason, he did not respond to a proposal for an international court.
                      1. Karabut
                        Karabut 29 September 2019 23: 41
                        -3
                        --- That is, he suggested that Russia voluntarily surrender to AB --- what is this for?
                        --- For some reason, he didn’t answer anything to the proposal on an international court .---- And what is there to answer this nonsense? Give examples of reasonable decisions of this court?
                        That the Russian Federation appealed to the international court when terrorists blew up houses in Moscow?))
                        ---A source? I brought mine .--- yes, take the simplest in the internet "July Crisis (1914) -in the wiki, and there is a chronological table given.
                      2. Trapperxnumx
                        Trapperxnumx 30 September 2019 08: 50
                        +2
                        Quote: Karabut
                        -Yes take the simplest in the internet "July Crisis (1914) -in the wiki, there is a chronological table given.

                        You have now fully signed in your ignorance, with which I congratulate you.
                      3. Karabut
                        Karabut 30 September 2019 10: 09
                        -1
                        If you do not provide your list of errors in this article, and especially in the chronology,
                        you will fully sign your stupid swagger.
                        And for some reason I think there will be no answer.))
                      4. Karabut
                        Karabut 1 October 2019 09: 42
                        -1
                        The day passed, the answer, as predicted, no. Life experience makes it easy to figure out swaggering fools and singe their cock tails.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. Karabut
                        Karabut 30 September 2019 23: 24
                        -1
                        Again, you do not know, Serbia was not an official ally of the Republic of Ingushetia, but AB was for Germany, but there are no Serbs for us.
                        Moreover, one must take into account a simple moment, whether the murder in Sarajevo was known to Russia or not. If yes, then the WWI culprit is definitely RI, if not, then the Serbs set us up and what kind of obligations can there be? The tail should not wag the dog.
                        We look at your wiki and read- "This table indicates the main events that occurred during the First World War. Chronology of the First World War on the site" Chronos "-that is, all the same" Chronos "-Internet-project" Chronos "is a non-commercial website, existing since 2000 and created by a private person.
                        And you know, I decided not to convince you if you think that the 50 million "Great Power" at that time could not defeat a poor agrarian country with 4.5 million people without general mobilization, so this is your business. Since 1908, AB has spent more than one time partial mobilization.
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 1 October 2019 19: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Karabut
                        Again you do not know, Serbia was not an official ally of RI
                        Blah blah blah ... I don’t know what the official agreements were, but to look for laziness, but in any case, the war with Serbia meant a challenge to the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia.
                        Quote: Karabut
                        Moreover, it is necessary to take into account a simple moment, the murder in Sarajevo was with the knowledge of Russia or not
                        Blah blah blah ... RI was not fully prepared for the war and this is a fact that everyone knows, so she didn’t need this murder at all.
                        Quote: Karabut
                        Watch your wiki and read
                        I am glad that you know how to do this, but I never saw your link to the source.
                        Quote: Karabut
                        You know, I decided not to convince you, if you think that the 50 million "Great Power" at that time could not defeat a poor agrarian country with 4.5 million people without general mobilization, so this is your business.
                        Blah blah blah ... RI beat the troops of this very airborne in the tail and mane, which, by the way, is also known to everyone.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Source? I brought mine.
        2. Vladimir Borisovich
          Vladimir Borisovich 1 October 2019 09: 39
          +1
          Circus and only: you, in general, see the fundamental difference between a declaration of war and mobilization or not?
          1. Karabut
            Karabut 1 October 2019 12: 15
            -1
            I do not, and you see?
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 25 September 2019 13: 08
      +3
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      He only came to the conclusion that the Author, fighting myths, created his own myths ....!

      To paraphrase a Russian proverb - a myth is kicked out by a myth! yes
  2. tlauicol
    tlauicol 25 September 2019 05: 11
    +5
    Myth No. 2. The country's unpreparedness for war

    Is unpreparedness for war an objective reality or also a myth, only a military-historical myth? And why are we used to talking about the unpreparedness of Russia alone? And were other countries ready?

    strange argument No.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 25 September 2019 07: 18
      +4
      The argument is absolutely true, all the parties to the conflict were not ready for the war, as it were, another thing that was easier for them, at the expense of a better developed economy.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 25 September 2019 08: 30
        +3
        Quote: strannik1985
        The argument is absolutely true.

        aha: we refute the myth "Russia was not ready for war" - "and others are not ready either" good Argumentation of the level "d.rak himself"
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 25 September 2019 08: 57
          +10
          I do not refute it, only correct it. The military makes plans, politicians make plans. We were preparing for one war (and we were ready for it), in fact, another happened.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 25 September 2019 09: 16
            +2
            Quote: strannik1985
            I do not refute it, only correct it. The military makes plans, politicians make plans. We were preparing for one war (and we were ready for it), in fact, another happened.

            Well, yes, well, yes, they were preparing for the drought - a flood happened. And in December, suddenly, winter still began
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 25 September 2019 09: 59
              +4
              If we take the analogy, then the drought, instead of one season, lasted several years in a row.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 25 September 2019 10: 28
                +1
                Quote: strannik1985
                If we take the analogy, then the drought, instead of one season, lasted several years in a row.

                aha, and those allies who are not ready for it survived it. except for Russia, which was preparing for a "different" drought.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 25 September 2019 10: 39
                  +2
                  It has nothing to do with preparing for war. A coup is, in principle, possible with any system.
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 25 September 2019 10: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    It has nothing to do with preparing for war. A coup is, in principle, possible with any system.

                    preparation for the war depends on its course and outcome. And this is the basis for discontent or joy. We were not ready for war and were defeated and three revolutions
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 25 September 2019 11: 14
                      +9
                      Whose discontent? February was not an abstract narrator, but figures from the State Duma and the military, the state of affairs at the front, the provision of residents of the capital with food was nothing more than an excuse. In the Second World War, the situation for the USSR was much worse, but the Red Army ended the war in Berlin.
                      1. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 25 September 2019 15: 31
                        -1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Whose discontent? February did not create an abstract narot, but figures from the State Duma

                        Yeah. Figures from the State Duma came and took the whole empire. Terminators.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In the Second World War, the situation for the USSR was much worse, but the Red Army ended the war in Berlin.

                        In WWII, people had something to fight for. There is no PMV.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 25 September 2019 17: 58
                        +3
                        Nope, they persuaded the generals, and they "persuaded" the emperor to abdicate. And then they were so "supervised" that the Bolsheviks came.

                        Yeah, and those who didn’t agree were sent to a ravine, they would throw their brains. And this is normal.
                      3. Oleg (Kharkov)
                        Oleg (Kharkov) 27 September 2019 22: 40
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Nope, they persuaded the generals, and they "persuaded" the emperor to abdicate.

                        What would happen to those brigade commanders / generals (and members of their families) who would try to persuade Stalin to renounce?
                      4. Pereira
                        28 September 2019 20: 28
                        +1
                        Nikita did not persuade anyone. He solved the problem on his own.
                      5. Oleg (Kharkov)
                        Oleg (Kharkov) 28 September 2019 21: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Pereira
                        He solved the problem on his own.

                        unlikely. but even so, Joseph Visarionovich left on time. I did not have time to turn into late Brezhnev.
      2. nickname7
        nickname7 25 September 2019 10: 52
        +4
        another thing is that it was easier for them, due to a better developed economy

        And this is one of the important points, Europe at that time has already passed to a more developed stage of capitalism, to continuous production, widespread introduction of steam technology. Cars were made
        tens of thousands, machine guns in million copies. But the RII was in a feudal state, could not be in line production. In the battle of economies feudalism lost to capitalism.
        Another nuance, the state military factories of the RII privatized, the capitalists lifted prices, which provoked a shell hunger and an economic crisis, meanwhile, England, on the contrary, nationalized the military-industrial complex, there are many such nuances.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 September 2019 19: 52
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      strange argument

      Absolutely logical - Russia was ready for the war, to the extent that it was assumed by the then calculations of its passage. The USSR was preparing for war in other conditions, simply because it had accurate data on how the WWI went.
    3. Pereira
      25 September 2019 21: 11
      +2
      strange argument

      About this in the second part.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 25 September 2019 23: 32
        +2
        Quote: Pereira
        About this in the second part.

        God forbid! Judging by the fact that already in the first part you are treating logic as a public girl ... It’s scary to imagine what awaits us in the second.
  3. Far B
    Far B 25 September 2019 06: 00
    +7
    Complete failure.
    Back in Soviet times, it was claimed that Russia entered the war to capture the Black Sea straits.
    I do not remember such a statement at point blank range, although I did a report on the start of WWI. It was argued that the war was caused by many circumstances that were based on one thing - to cut the world map in order to redistribute markets. Indeed, capitalism, and as its highest stage, is imperialism. Well, nobody seemed to argue with that.
    The most interesting thing is that no one started any world war and did not intend to start even in the conditions of confrontation between the two military blocs.
    No one started, but everyone was getting ready. Not without reason, many contemporaries noted that the war smelled even a few years before it began. It simply could not blaze. And it could have been before - with one of the two Balkans.
    About the French credit hook - generally tin. He was, but the country wasn’t dragged into a war game ...
    Actually, the feeling that the author is trying to justify Russia's entry into the WWII. Only here are the soldiers of that war, moreover, from both warring parties, they hardly agree with the author. Well, this war was not theirs. Hence, spontaneous truces, fraternities, and the final collapse of the four empires.
    1. parma
      parma 25 September 2019 07: 17
      +2
      Quote: Dalny V
      Actually, the feeling that the author is trying to justify Russia's entry into the WWII. Only here are the soldiers of that war, moreover, from both warring parties, they hardly agree with the author. Well, this war was not theirs. Hence, spontaneous truces, fraternities, and the final collapse of the four empires.

      The author is just trying to replace some myths with others .... "Fashionable" yesterday - "the king is bad, we were not ready and did not want to fight at all", for the "fashionable" today - "the British and Americans are to blame for everything!"
      But in fact - everyone wanted war and everyone thought they were ready, as they correctly noted in the comments - "the war was literally in the air" ...
      Our country - wanted to crush the Balkans as a whole, because the Orthodox, for the Slavs, etc., Austria-Hungary wanted the same, but the reasons were different - they didn’t have time to divide the world, they slept, but they wanted to grab their piece. England and France were not ready to tolerate competitors in their markets (which the colonies, and the French also wanted to get even for the recent defeat) ... And so there were blocks - no one has sales markets and no one ... This incidentally explains why Portugal or Spain refrained from a common party - their blankets were bursting at the seams and without a war, the war did not allow new markets or protection of the old ones (poor fellows were kicking anyone who was not lazy) ..
      Although it is not entirely clear with Germany, new markets could open only at certain trading points of the peace treaty (well, I do not believe that Germany could get colonies upon victory .. it would be too difficult from an administrative point of view).
      By the way, yes, the author did not even mention the overestimation of his importance by the "newly arrived players" - the United States did not overestimate itself .. There was no risk - the maximum they could lose (in case of defeat) - people ... And without their participation, there was a rather big chance of a separate peace , everyone was already exhausted and did not see a way out of the situation, this by the way explains the "fraternization" .. The beginning of the war all the nations greeted animatedly (see the reasons for the war above) - we even called the WWII WWII at first, but it turned out like the Crimean War - all sides overestimated themselves and got neither fish nor meat at the exit ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 07: 32
      +7
      Quote: Dalny V

      Back in Soviet times, it was claimed that Russia entered the war to capture the Black Sea straits.
      I do not remember such a statement at point blank range, although I did a report on the start of WWI. It was argued that the war was caused by many circumstances that were based on one thing - to cut the world map in order to redistribute markets.

      There was such a statement, only Germany tried to cut the map, which needed markets for the products of its growing economy, Russia had no need to cut, it already had enough consumers, but access to the world ocean through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles was necessary for the uninterrupted export of bread, this is certainly not the only reason. which we were told about at school, but she was.
      Quote: Dalny V
      Actually, the feeling that the author is trying to justify Russia's entry into the WWII.

      The author does not try at all
      Quote: Dalny V
      justify Russia's entry into WWII

      he rightly rejects this idea, arguing that Russia was drawn into the war, despite its unwillingness to fight, because Russia did not declare war on anyone, it was announced to it.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 25 September 2019 08: 23
        +2
        In this particular case, Germany defended its ally.
        Everything looks somehow not very. In fact, Nicholas stood up for Serbian terrorists, allegedly implicated in the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne. Well, the security of Serbia would meet some Russian interests, except moral satisfaction (our son of a bitch). Well, Serbia is not worth the war, even the one it was intended to be.
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 08: 40
          +4
          Quote: strannik1985
          In this particular case, Germany defended its ally.

          starting with war? Moreover, Russia did not attack AB, but only threatened, Nikolai asked Wilhelm for mediation in preventing the war.
          Quote: strannik1985
          In fact, Nikolai stood up for Serbian terrorists

          Not quite so, RI always had interests in the Balkans, hence all the Russo-Turkish wars and it would not be worthwhile to reduce everything to protecting terrorists. Serbia at that time remained the only outpost of Russia in the Balkans, as Bulgaria, after the second Balkan war, was not very friendly towards RI.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 25 September 2019 08: 55
            +2
            Starting mobilization in response to mobilization in Russia. Well, Germany can’t throw AVI, this leads to the threat of breaking allied relations with all that it implies.

            Traditional claims to the role of a certain leader of the Slavic world. That's just leadership, without the economic and financial component turned out to be zilch, the Serbs simply used us.
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 09: 01
              +1
              Quote: strannik1985
              Starting mobilization in response to mobilization in Russia.

              not mobilization, but war
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 25 September 2019 09: 59
                -1
                It is the same.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 25 September 2019 20: 00
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  It is the same

                  And who was the first to start mobilization?
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 26 September 2019 04: 53
                    +1
                    Austria-Hungary partially mobilized on July 26, Russia partially on July 29.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 26 September 2019 19: 14
                      +2
                      That is, in the end, AB is ultimately to blame. But Germany could well shout at the Allies, but did not want to.
                      1. Pereira
                        26 September 2019 19: 26
                        +2
                        AB's fault is not accepted.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 26 September 2019 19: 37
                        -1
                        Excuse me, what are you to blame for? Was it necessary to leave the murder without consequences?
                      3. Prometey
                        Prometey 27 September 2019 11: 19
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Excuse me, what are you to blame for? Was it necessary to leave the murder without consequences?

                        And what kind of actions of one madman should be responsible for the whole nation? Austria-Hungary behaved like a gopnik. Serbia agreed to all the conditions of the investigation into the murder of the Archduke
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 27 September 2019 17: 17
                        -1
                        It’s not about Princip’s nationality, but about his ties to the Black Hand, a secret nationalist organization whose leader (Dragutin Dmitrievich) was the head of Serbian counterintelligence.
                      5. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 27 September 2019 18: 49
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Was it necessary to leave the murder without consequences?

                        I remember here it was already written about the international court, which was proposed by Nicholas II.
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 28 September 2019 08: 42
                        -1
                        A fiction in which Russia, France, England will occupy a pro-Serbian position, and Germany, Italy - for Austria-Hungary.
                        Pay attention to the clause of the July ultimatum, which the Serbs did not accept, refusing to conduct an investigation.
                      7. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 28 September 2019 11: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Fiction in which

                        there is a chance to resolve the matter by negotiation, avoiding the slaughter.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Pay attention to the paragraph of the July ultimatum

                        Following your own logic, it would be a fiction in which the Austrians would blame Serbia. M, by the way, the Serbs also offered to conduct an international trial.
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 29 September 2019 05: 14
                        -1
                        No, this is a real murder, and its organizers were in the Serbian counterintelligence (incidentally, the defendants were cleared up in 1916-1917, ends in water, as they say). Wars started for much smaller reasons.
                      9. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 29 September 2019 06: 28
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        No, this is a real murder, with its organizers sitting in a Serbian counterintelligence

                        No one really knows where he was sitting, but to whom it was beneficial, this is another question. It is unlikely that Serbia was so eager to fight with AB.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Wars started for much smaller reasons.

                        This was a reason, not a reason.
        2. Karabut
          Karabut 28 September 2019 23: 19
          0
          The terrorists were not supposedly, but precisely the investigation proved trained, armed and directed by the Serbian special services. And this was not the first case.
          There are two options: either we wanted and provoked this war by the hands of the Serbs, or they used us in the dark.
        3. Karabut
          Karabut 30 September 2019 13: 23
          -1
          I agree with the above written by you, and here-
          "Well, Serbia is not worth a war, even the one it was conceived." - crushing Germany, getting reparations, it was tempting and most importantly possible for the Republic of Ingushetia in the configuration of forces in 1914, in fact until 1915. This was the "prize", and Serbia is just a cover for these plans.
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 September 2019 19: 58
      +2
      Quote: Dalny V
      I do not remember such a statement at point blank range, although I did a report on the start of the WWII.

      It was so. Actually, there is nothing strange in this, the Republic of Ingushetia has long dreamed about it, although the main reason is of course "imperialism".
      Quote: Dalny V
      Not without reason, many contemporaries noted that the war smelled even a few years before it began.
      War, but not world war. Even in the early months, everyone thought it would be a relatively "small" batch, not a slaughter.
      Quote: Dalny V
      Well, this war was not theirs. Hence, spontaneous truces, fraternities, and the final collapse of the four empires.
      There is no need to repeat this nonsense. Booze at meetings is "spontaneous", but as for the collapse, for some reason other participants did not "collapse".
  4. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 06: 20
    +7
    And who in Soviet historiography claimed that Russia entered the war with the direct aim of capturing the straits? What directly was the purpose of participating in the war since August 1914? Can I link to work?
  5. Cartalon
    Cartalon 25 September 2019 06: 23
    -1
    It is intelligently written, but there is too much water, instead of refuting someone, it is better to give just your vision of the situation.
    The fact that the Britons pitted Germany with Russia suggests that they greatly exaggerated the forces of Russia because such a war would have gone to Britain sideways after the victory of the Germans.
  6. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 06: 23
    +6
    In Soviet times, one-sided for the sake of ideology, and in modern times - for the sake of it is not clear to anyone. However, you can search for beneficiaries.

    In the USSR for the sake of "ideology"? which one? now for the sake of what? Ideology, which one?
    1. Pedrodepackes
      Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 07: 35
      +3
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      In the USSR for the sake of "ideology"?

      Do you think that there was no ideology in the USSR?
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      what?

      communist
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      now for the sake of what?

      but about now it’s not clear
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      Ideology, which?

      no idea now, well, except
      staple
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Edward Vashchenko
        Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 09: 55
        +3
        Alex,
        the question was rhetorical: ideology influences historiography at all times and among all peoples who have it, therefore there are conventionally the concepts of "noble" historiography of the first half of the nineteenth century or historiography and "school of V.O. Klyuchevsky".
        Obviously, being under the influence or "control" of the ideology of the work of a particular period bear a certain imprint of it, there are pluses and minuses.
        The historiography of WWI of the USSR period also has its own stages, for example, in the 20s there were many of its participants, memoirs and scientific works were actively written, especially since the participants in WWI, many, served in the Red Army and the key was of practical military interest. The materials and data on WWI were actively studied by military practices and were not studied out of idle interest: Russia lost the First World War, and under the conditions of the Curzon ultimatum, fears of a repetition of defeat forced us to actively deal with the situation.
        The next stage is the decline in interest in the WWII, when the war began, so to speak, on new technologies.
        There was a scientific interest in the history of diplomacy and the general situation, but there is no such work where it would be written "Russia entered the war over the Straits."
        I will not now list the reasons and premises available in historiography.
        In general, the historiography of the Soviet period quite correctly assessed the situation, prerequisites and causes, results and causes of the defeat associated with WWI. Of course, there will always be "stupid" formalist educators, there were also in the USSR who would write dogmatic nonsense, but they did not determine the historiographic ball.
        With perestroika, a new, natural interest in WWI arose, often under the slogan of discovering "white spots of history". The movement of reenactors and historians interested in this area aroused interest in military specifics: weapons, uniforms, equipment, etc.
        Important for historiography, but not defining details, but on the whole, no particularly breakthrough conclusions were reached, and scientific historiography is moving in the key of the same Soviet historiography, from the point of view of a common vision of causes, premises, etc. (see, for example, V. Galkin).
        About alternatives who "lost something", you probably meant them, I will not write. And the "braces", it seems to me, has nothing to do with it)))
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 10: 39
          +2
          Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
          the question was rhetorical: on historiography,

          from the context of the article and your comment it’s clear (for me personally),
          Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
          In the USSR for the sake of "ideology"? which one?
          that the question was raised about the lack of ideology in the USSR in general. If you had a different message in the comment, then you need to express yourself more clearly. As for the straits, the author of the article and I, in my commentary, had in mind the interpretation of the reasons for the entry into the war of the Republic of Ingushetia, as it was presented in the lessons of history in the Soviet school, and not in the context of the history of the actual development of events. hi
          1. Edward Vashchenko
            Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 11: 00
            +4
            This was not in the Soviet school. The ultimatum of Serbia on the part of Austria and the attempt to defend Serbia is a formal reason, it was also always said that Germany started the war.
            The Straits were discussed in connection with the Minister of the Provisional Government P. Milyukov. hi
            1. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 11: 22
              +2
              Quote: Edward Vashchenko
              This was not in the Soviet school. The ultimatum of Serbia on the part of Austria and the attempt to defend Serbia is a formal reason, it was also always said that Germany started the war.
              The Straits were discussed in connection with the Minister of the Provisional Government P. Milyukov. hi

              The schools have always talked about the reasons and reasons for the war, as the reason was, as you correctly noted, the defense of Serbia, and the reasons (there were several) including was the mastery of the straits.
            2. Pedrodepackes
              Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 11: 31
              +3
              Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
              This was not in the Soviet school.

              TEXTBOOK OF HISTORY OF THE USSR 9 CLASS
              CHAPTER VIII
              WORLD WAR I
              § 23. The causes and nature of the First World War
              The goals of the main participants in the war.
              .... France hoped to return Alsace, Lorraine and capture the Saar coal basin. Tsarism hoped to strengthen its position in the Balkans and the Middle East, and the Russian bourgeoisie dreamed of capturing the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

              something like
              1. Edward Vashchenko
                Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 11: 40
                +4
                Yes, I wanted to publish the same quote, mind you, "the bourgeoisie dreamed," and not "Tsarism" set such a task, and if you follow the development of this issue, the topic of the straits arose in 1915 and it was the representatives of the bourgeois parties in the State Duma who actively lobbied it, therefore and “dreamed”, but did not define it programmatically, and Turkey entered the war by the end of the year.
                1. Pedrodepackes
                  Pedrodepackes 25 September 2019 11: 47
                  +1
                  Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
                  notice "the bourgeoisie dreamed"

                  do you think the emperor was not influenced by this "bourgeoisie" who financed this war? And that’s not the point, we’re talking about teaching in schools, and there the tsar wanted it or the bourgeoisie didn’t share it, there was a reason to take the straits, period. The schoolchildren did not argue. This is what the author of the article is talking about. On this we will finish hi
                  1. Edward Vashchenko
                    Edward Vashchenko 25 September 2019 13: 05
                    +2
                    I agree, only the author about the school is not a word, but about Soviet historiography, she has nothing to do with school.
                    Sincerely. hi
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 September 2019 07: 32
    +1
    The idea that even it was not necessary to try to protect the Serbs from the Austrian attack and generally participate in European affairs is being pushed implicitly. And I suspect a conscious and deliberately masked call for historical surrender to the West from this series. “They would drink the Bavarian now.”

    An implicit but logical chain is built: it was necessary to capitulate in 1812, andgood Napoleon would abolish serfdom to us. In 1914, it was necessary to capitulate, and instead of revolution, industrialization, flights to Kosomos, they would crunch with a French bun. In 1941, it was necessary to capitulate, and would have drunk on beer. It is necessary to capitulate now to taste cheeses and jamon.

    1, About beer ...: And what about the statements of Hitler, Himmler about leaving "a million slaves" on the occupied lands of Russia, period !? Why are the guardians of this "idea" so sure that their progenitors would have ended up in this "golden" million? Let it be not 1, but 2-3 million !? What would that change? And where does this confidence come from that slaves will be allowed to drink "Bavarian" beer and eat sausages, and not dream of "kvass and a crust of bread"? Or do they judge by themselves (?) ... they say, if we ourselves are scoundrels and ready to betray everyone , then our ancestors should be like that (!) ... they would serve as policemen, overseers, wardens, informers, punishers in firing squads (so that the gentlemen would not stain their hands and smell of gunpowder ...), hangmen ...
    2. Napoleon and serfdom ... It is known that during the war of 1812 the landowners in the Russian territories captured by the French repeatedly turned to the French troops with a request to "calm down" the peasants who decided to partisan and therefore refused to work for the landowners and took bread to the detachment so that the French would not get it ... Moreover, Napoleon ordered the commanders of the French troops to "satisfy" the requests of the landowners ... If my memory serves me, Napoleon also distributed appeals to the Russian nobility, where he assured the nobles that he would not encroach on "serfdom" ..
    3. About cheeses and jamon ... Well, even without the "occupation" in Russia, the store shelves are littered with "cheeses and jamon" ... But can everyone afford this cheese and jamon so often that one could say that it has become the main food of the people? How often and in what quantity do you or your neighbors, friends, relatives buy French Parmesan, Philadelphia, Jamon, uncooked smoked cervelat, basturma, salmon, shrimp, French cognac, bourbon whiskey, Clicquot champagne? And are there a lot of real cheese and jamon on these counters, and not "ersatz cheeses" and fake "jamon"?
    1. Lieutenant Teterin
      Lieutenant Teterin 25 September 2019 09: 47
      +7
      As far as I understand the logic of such "defeatists", they simply see any conqueror as a kind of "white man who comes to the country of barbarians." They certainly rank themselves among the "whites", distancing themselves from the "barbarians". But they forget that traitors are only useful to the conqueror on a limited scale.
      1. Pereira
        25 September 2019 21: 20
        +1
        As Smerdyakov used to say: “I hate the whole of Russia ... In the twelfth year there was a great invasion of the Emperor Napoleon of France the first, and it’s good, if we were then conquered by these very French, a clever nation would have conquered a very stupid one, sir, and added to it. would be other orders. ".
    2. Kronos
      Kronos 25 September 2019 12: 12
      +1
      In 1812, Napoleon did not plan to capture Russia; he was interested in observing the continental blockade treaty.
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 25 September 2019 09: 15
    0
    To the lines "So, if you wish, you can find those who benefit from the continuation of Bolshevik myths and benefit from the creation of new myths." the author in one way or another expresses sound thoughts.
    After that, the author unfolds 180 degrees and, in full accordance with himself, begins to dilute and fertilize history with replicas of an amateur historian, not burdened either by corporate ethics or by special knowledge of the subject.
    I don’t see the point in a detailed analysis, all this has been discussed many times on the site, I want to ask the author a question - how can one refute historical myths about such a global event as a world war, build some kind of argument without resorting to historical documents? What, in this case, serves as the basis for evidence of the author’s point of view, because unlike Abrahamic religions, history does not provide such a category as revelation?
    The article is, at best, a place in Opinions.
    1. Pereira
      25 September 2019 21: 25
      -1
      for unlike Abrahamic religions, does history not provide for such a category as revelation?

      Are you serious? You did not live during perestroika? However, not much was lost. Country, perhaps.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 25 September 2019 21: 34
        +1
        I lived at the time of the thaw, and at the time of stagnation, and in pre-perestroika, and in perestroika and even post-perestroika. Therefore, I am well aware of the difference between history and its propaganda version.
        However, you are going to refute myths without resorting to historical documents. Do not you find that this is no less powerful than a prophet? What role are you aiming for? Immediately on someone from the Great, or modestly on small stop?
        1. Pereira
          25 September 2019 22: 39
          0
          As part of three short articles, it is unreasonable to cite historical documents. Not that format. Here, the argumentation and presentation of the material should be different.
          As for the prophet, do not exaggerate the complexity of the problem. Quite feasible, if you look at the problem from a slightly different angle.
          And I am really aiming for the great ones. On the great disinfectors. Well, on Delbrück, to the heap. He, of course, is a star of the first magnitude, but succumbed to pride. As a result, he certainly did not pull the prophet.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 25 September 2019 23: 00
            0
            Any form of argument is not possible without the factual aspect. Your value as such is zero, agree.
            So you can swing at Delbrück, Delbrück just will not notice.
            1. Pereira
              26 September 2019 00: 22
              +2
              My value as a source? I beg of you. You are confusing something. I’m not an eyewitness, I was born much later than the described time. I use the information of eyewitnesses.
              But in order to evaluate the sources, draw conclusions and give an assessment, it is not necessary to be a participant in the event.
              And Delbrück, indeed, does not notice anything, I do not argue. They say he died a long time ago.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 26 September 2019 06: 48
                0
                draw conclusions and give an assessment
                Judging by the first two myths, the value of your Findings and assessments is similar to the above.
          2. Hantengri
            Hantengri 26 September 2019 00: 15
            +1
            Quote: Pereira

            As part of three short articles, it is unreasonable to cite historical documents. Not that format. Here, the argumentation and presentation of the material should be different.

            Right! Why deal with all this, a tangled tangle of causes and effects that led the world to WWI! It is much easier to take a couple of windmills out of your head and successfully defeat them, using arguments such as: "Whoever whistled his hat, he kicked his aunt!" (c), in the sense: Who first declared war, he had plans, insidious! The rest are out of business.
            1. Pereira
              26 September 2019 00: 28
              +1
              You can always unravel the tangle of cause and effect. But if you know in advance that Russia is to blame for everything, then do not waste your time. Wind the ball and put it in the closet.
              As I understand it, you should not expect serious counterarguments from you.
              Good night.
              1. Hantengri
                Hantengri 26 September 2019 00: 54
                -1
                Quote: Pereira
                But if you know in advance that Russia is to blame for everything, then do not waste your time.

                Urya-patriotism of the brain?
                Quote: Pereira
                As I understand it, you should not expect serious counterarguments from you.

                Why repeat what has already been said by other comrades?
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 26 September 2019 19: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: HanTengri
                  Urya-patriotism of the brain?

                  That is, essentially nothing to argue.
  9. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 25 September 2019 09: 43
    +1
    Great article! I look forward to continuing with interest.
  10. iConst
    iConst 25 September 2019 09: 51
    0
    Schlieffen’s plan stalled immediately - on Belgian fortresses. On the move, they couldn’t be taken. True, the obstacle to the blitzkrieg was partially stopped by Ludendorff. He managed to secure the capture of Liège. But there were many similar obstacles, and there weren’t enough Ludendorfs. As it turned out, with all the gloomy beauty, Schlieffen's plan did not have a margin of safety in case of unforeseen circumstances.

    Oh-ho-ho-ho ... For a long time I was fond of this. But, as far as I remember, fortresses were not a serious obstacle and the Schlieffen Plan (PS) took into account such a deviation. Moltke ml. in charge of western wing front. It was impossible to stop the skew. The front was supposed to move according to plan. Lagging behind eastern the western front could not be compensated in other places - everything was violated. The result is known: instead of a blitzkrieg - a war of attrition.

    Yes, plus creative reworking of the plan by Moltke, Jr., more than once criticized by historians. In addition, the Belgians opposed Schliffen's mathematics to intransigence, and the French - quick maneuver by reserves.

    Oh, this Moltke Jr.! Of course, the PSh began to fall apart from him, but the reasons for his behavior are still unknown. Some historians believe that he was forced to do so due to tensions in the headquarters between the "upstarts" German military leaders and the elite - the Prussians, who, like the Poles, were affected by the "ambition" virus.
    I don’t remember the "lightning speed" of the French. Only the companionship of Moltke Jr. allowed them to get out of their stupor and continue the campaign.
  11. Kronos
    Kronos 25 September 2019 12: 14
    0
    The author is brazenly lying trying to refute the facts, calling them myths.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 25 September 2019 12: 42
      0
      The author just lists the facts
  12. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 25 September 2019 12: 54
    0
    only one question why the hell ri needed serbia (stupid talk about brothers, I swear they are stupid as now sokraina) and the whole question is the Balkan Slavs, they from Russia always wanted money
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 25 September 2019 15: 32
      +4
      To hell that Austria did not want to give the Balkans
  13. Moore
    Moore 26 September 2019 11: 13
    +1
    But it is beneficial to those whom neither the Bolsheviks nor the autocracy are satisfied with. And there are such. They are the ideological heirs of the Provisional Government of 1917.

    IMHO, this is beneficial to those whom Russia, in principle, is not happy with - that is, Russophobes.
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 September 2019 15: 39
    -2
    "Only in the evening (July 30), under pressure from military officials, the emperor (of Russia) gave permission to start a general mobilization."
    Germany declared war on Russia on August 1.
    There would be no general mobilization, quite possibly, there would be no declaration of war every other day.
    Germany longed to crack down on France (and vice versa). And to contact Kaiser with Russia was no disadvantage.
    In short, Nicholas II was "under pressure from military officials" (who was it? Who put pressure on the emperor? smile ) got excited ... sad
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 27 September 2019 11: 17
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Germany longed to crack down on France (and vice versa). And to contact Kaiser with Russia was no disadvantage.

      Where does this information come from? And how do you know what was beneficial to the Kaiser and what was not?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 27 September 2019 13: 18
        -5
        France prepared and started a great war.
        Because in 1870 France suffered a heavy and humiliating
        military defeat from Prussia. And the memories of the greatness of Napoleonic
        eras were still very strong in France. And the desire for revenge.
        Germany knew about French intrigues and was preparing very much for war with France
        Seriously. Germany was militarized, but pragmatic. War on two fronts all
        her military doctrines were denied.
        France succeeded in drawing Russia through diplomacy and bank loans
        into a heavy war. Russia overestimated its military forces.
  15. Borey 53
    Borey 53 29 October 2019 17: 55
    0
    hi Very interesting.
  16. Molot1979
    Molot1979 31 October 2019 12: 49
    0
    Signor Pereira is wrong. On all counts. To put it mildly, ignores inconvenient facts for the sake of "beauty of the concept." But to write a detailed refutation, you need to roll the sheet twice as wide.